Former Judges, Criminal Defense Associations File Briefs Supporting Missouri Inmate Who Was Denied Funding for Counsel

A group of 16 for­mer state and fed­er­al judges and three of the nation’s pre­em­i­nent crim­i­nal defense orga­ni­za­tions have filed briefs in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in sup­port of Missouri death row inmate Mark Christeson​’s efforts to be afford­ed a mean­ing­ful oppor­tu­ni­ty to inves­ti­gate and present his claims to the fed­er­al courts. Christeson was near­ly exe­cut­ed in 2014 with­out ever hav­ing any fed­er­al court hear his case, after the lawyers appoint­ed to rep­re­sent him in his fed­er­al pro­ceed­ings failed to meet with him until six weeks after his fil­ing dead­line had passed. 

After the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the dis­trict court to appoint new lawyers, a Kansas City-based court direct­ed them to sub­mit a pro­posed bud­get for the case. Then, with­out expla­na­tion, it refused to fund 94% of their request­ed bud­get, lim­it­ing the defense to $10,000 for the entire capital case. 

The ami­cus briefs urge the Eighth Circuit to over­turn the fund­ing deci­sion, argu­ing that it effec­tive­ly deprives Christeson of his right to coun­sel. The for­mer judges brief, orga­nized by Constitution Project, calls the dis­trict court’s rul­ing ​“naked­ly par­ti­san,” read­ing ​“less like a judi­cial opin­ion and more like a prosecutor’s brief.” They say ““When attor­neys lack ade­quate funds to inves­ti­gate and pre­pare sub­mis­sions in a cap­i­tal habeas case, the adver­sar­i­al process can­not per­form its essen­tial func­tion of reveal­ing the truth.” In par­tic­u­lar, they say the fund­ing rul­ing pre­vent­ed coun­sel from devel­op­ing and pre­sent­ing men­tal health evi­dence that Christeson’s severe cog­ni­tive impair­ment left him unable to assert his own rights after his pre­vi­ous coun­sel had abandoned him. 

The sec­ond brief, filed by the National Association for Public Defense, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and the National Legal Aid and Defender Association, joined by the MacArthur Justice Center at St. Louis, argued that, ​“It is not pos­si­ble to main­tain the integri­ty and fair­ness of cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment, and habeas pro­ceed­ings gen­er­al­ly, if dis­trict court judges con­tin­ue to inter­fere with rep­re­sen­ta­tion in this man­ner with no check on their abuse of dis­cre­tion.” Mae Quinn, the Director of the MacArthur cen­ter, said the denial of resources ​“is sad­ly con­sis­tent with the cul­ture and ongo­ing chal­lenges faced by the Missouri crim­i­nal and juve­nile defense bar.” Missouri ranks 49^th in the nation in fund­ing indigent defense.

Christeson’s orig­i­nal fed­er­al court lawyers ulti­mate­ly filed his habeas peti­tion 117 days late, lead­ing the dis­trict court to dis­miss it as untime­ly. New lawyers attempt­ed to enter their appear­ance in the case, argu­ing that Christeson’s pri­or lawyers had aban­doned him, and he should be afford­ed an oppor­tu­ni­ty to restore his fed­er­al rights. Accusing new coun­sel of ​“abu­sive” delays, the dis­trict court refused their request. While Christeson’s appeal was pend­ing, the Missouri Supreme Court issued a death war­rant. The U.S. Supreme Court grant­ed a stay of exe­cu­tion and, in 2015, ordered the dis­trict court to pro­vide new attor­neys to pur­sue fed­er­al review of his case, lead­ing to the low­er court’s funding order.